Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful caveat about availability ('if available') but does not explain what happens when analysis is missing (e.g., null vs. error) or other operational behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose immediately and clearly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple surface (one parameter, annotations, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on how this tool relates to the many AI-related siblings and does not clarify the meaning of 'if available' operationally, leaving some context gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameter. It only restates that the tool works 'for a scan_id', which the schema already conveys via the property name and title 'Scan Id' – no added detail on format, source, or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action (Get) and resource (AI analysis), and ties it to a scan_id. It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish from related sibling tools like search_ai_classification or get_analyzer_results, so it misses the full 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you have a scan_id and need AI analysis, but it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer. The 'if available' caveat hints at behavior but not selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.